In the spirit of easing everyone and anyone in, we will begin quasi-formally with - of course - the Manifesto. In honor of the bicentennial of Marx's birth on May 5, the full month will be dedicated to reading and discussing this relatively brief work. Free versions of the text are available in numerous places online (see, for example, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/), and physical copies are equally plentiful either new or used.
I have included a few selected passages and questions here to perhaps initiate some discussion - hopefully some that will be of interest to participants - but feel free to steer the discussion down different avenues depending on your thoughts or interests.
--- Original Introductory Post Saved Below for Anyone Curious about the Reasoning for and Justification Behind This Thread ---
This year marks the centennial of the Russian revolution (today itself, in fact, is 100 years to the day from when the Red Guards led the insurrection in St Petersburg), and the next is the bicentennial of Marx's birth. What better time to read the Marxist 'classics'? And to make it convenient and approachable, I propose to seize the opportunity with a casual reading group focused on directly engaging with these ideas by reading the primary sources, and developing one's views on this movement that repeatedly reemerges in the sweeps of history, ever eager to help dig capitalism's grave.
The expectation here is not to create a primer on orthodoxy, if there can even be said to exist a Marxist orthodoxy these days. Maybe you're new, interested in understanding what Marxism means, what Marx said, and whether it continues to be relevant or should be tossed into the rubbish bin of history. Maybe you've encountered the major works before and would like to take the time to reread them (this is my case). Maybe you're actually opposed to radical leftism, but you've never read Marx himself and feel like that's something missing in your intellectual development. We're open to all who are sincere in their commitment to read, learn, and civilly discuss.
The basic structure of the reading group will be: at predetermined intervals, everyone will read an agreed upon chunk of the Marxist literature - most likely excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, or other prominent Marxists. The readings could range from a consideration of Marx's early works up to modern books and articles on Marx - all depending on the interests of the group.
I don't plan to initiate the readings, however, until early 2018. This will give us time to determine our shared interests and seek out the relevant materials. The first readings will probably be introductory - the Communist Manifesto, the basic terminology, and perhaps some good guides to Marx in the secondary literature. Future readings will cover different topics as we see fit, whether it's delving into value theory, exploring the dialectic, debating the concept of historical stages and determinism, or anything else. We can focus on history, on philosophy, on economics, on cultural critique, or any combination of the above.
If you're interested, to get us started please list below why you'd like to participate, what your preexisting engagement with the topic has been (if any), what specifically about Marxism you'd like to explore ("the basics" is a completely adequate response here), and how often you'd prefer the reading deadlines to be.
I have included a few selected passages and questions here to perhaps initiate some discussion - hopefully some that will be of interest to participants - but feel free to steer the discussion down different avenues depending on your thoughts or interests.
--- Original Introductory Post Saved Below for Anyone Curious about the Reasoning for and Justification Behind This Thread ---
This year marks the centennial of the Russian revolution (today itself, in fact, is 100 years to the day from when the Red Guards led the insurrection in St Petersburg), and the next is the bicentennial of Marx's birth. What better time to read the Marxist 'classics'? And to make it convenient and approachable, I propose to seize the opportunity with a casual reading group focused on directly engaging with these ideas by reading the primary sources, and developing one's views on this movement that repeatedly reemerges in the sweeps of history, ever eager to help dig capitalism's grave.
The expectation here is not to create a primer on orthodoxy, if there can even be said to exist a Marxist orthodoxy these days. Maybe you're new, interested in understanding what Marxism means, what Marx said, and whether it continues to be relevant or should be tossed into the rubbish bin of history. Maybe you've encountered the major works before and would like to take the time to reread them (this is my case). Maybe you're actually opposed to radical leftism, but you've never read Marx himself and feel like that's something missing in your intellectual development. We're open to all who are sincere in their commitment to read, learn, and civilly discuss.
The basic structure of the reading group will be: at predetermined intervals, everyone will read an agreed upon chunk of the Marxist literature - most likely excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, or other prominent Marxists. The readings could range from a consideration of Marx's early works up to modern books and articles on Marx - all depending on the interests of the group.
I don't plan to initiate the readings, however, until early 2018. This will give us time to determine our shared interests and seek out the relevant materials. The first readings will probably be introductory - the Communist Manifesto, the basic terminology, and perhaps some good guides to Marx in the secondary literature. Future readings will cover different topics as we see fit, whether it's delving into value theory, exploring the dialectic, debating the concept of historical stages and determinism, or anything else. We can focus on history, on philosophy, on economics, on cultural critique, or any combination of the above.
If you're interested, to get us started please list below why you'd like to participate, what your preexisting engagement with the topic has been (if any), what specifically about Marxism you'd like to explore ("the basics" is a completely adequate response here), and how often you'd prefer the reading deadlines to be.
Interested. I've read the manifesto and that's about it. I would imagine Capital needs to be read, but that's quite the read and will require some time to do so. Maybe for longer reads we can break it up into sections like this was a college course. That way the thread stays fresh without long droughts in between reads.
Economics and it's effects on society interest me. The concept of capital and it's relationship with labor is a part of that.
I would also suggest that we try and find similarities between the old texts and current economies. The rise of unions. The concept of a market based socialist economy.
Economics and it's effects on society interest me. The concept of capital and it's relationship with labor is a part of that.
I would also suggest that we try and find similarities between the old texts and current economies. The rise of unions. The concept of a market based socialist economy.
I'm down.
I feel that the modern world is deeply, deeply fucked up in a basic way. The excesses and problems inherent in an unrestrained capitalist world are plain to see, but I don't claim to have the solution.
I'm a late comer to leftist thought and I'll admit that my basic knowledge is lacking. I'd like to change that.
I feel that the modern world is deeply, deeply fucked up in a basic way. The excesses and problems inherent in an unrestrained capitalist world are plain to see, but I don't claim to have the solution.
I'm a late comer to leftist thought and I'll admit that my basic knowledge is lacking. I'd like to change that.
Honestly my big push into socialist concepts stems from automation and how we as a society transition into a post scarcity (or close to it) world.
By Fenderputty Go To Post… like this was a college course. That way the thread stays fresh without long droughts in between reads.That was my plan for the structure of the reading group: based upon everyone's interests, I'd develop a schedule along the lines of a syllabus, and we'd take it from there.
Practical question time: how often would we like to meet back after the readings - weekly, monthly? Obviously, the discussions could continue through, and some may even want to pull from the material they're currently reading, but the foundation would still be a regular schedule with 'required' and 'optional' readings - the former only really being 'required' in the sense that you probably won't be able to follow and participate in the discussion without having read them.
By Fenderputty Go To PostI would imagine Capital needs to be readThat's something we could aim for, but I think it'd probably be more approachable to devour it in thematic chunks accompanied by texts from other authors, rather than in a long slog through those dense and incomplete volumes.
By Fenderputty Go To PostEconomics and it's effects on society interest me.To clarify: do you mean economics as a field of study and how it has affected society, or the effects of the economy itself on society? There's plenty to be read in each area, so I want to make sure I'll be including the right materials.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThe concept of capital and it's relationship with labor is a part of that.That's basically the core of Marx's work, so we'll have plenty to mine in that vein.
By Fenderputty Go To PostI would also suggest that we try and find similarities between the old texts and current economies. The rise of unions. The concept of a market based socialist economy.
By Fenderputty Go To PostHonestly my big push into socialist concepts stems from automation and how we as a society transition into a post scarcity (or close to it) world.Some of this interest seems historical, and some seems speculative. I'll try to cover both, and we can adapt as we see fit.
An increasing amount of literature is being released on the issue of automation lately, so we'll have plenty of quite recent works to look at there; but you'll also find that the issue has a deep history in Marx's own work.
By KingGondo Go To PostThe excesses and problems inherent in an unrestrained capitalist world are plain to see, but I don't claim to have the solution.I don't know that anyone - Marxist or otherwise - has found the solution, but I find it to be a useful tradition for thinking with to identify and investigate the problems and approach the idea of a solution radically.
By livefromkyoto Go To PostRead all of Kapital.I dare you in return.
I dare you.
My local DSA actually has a reading group. I should really attend it.
It could also give me some ideas to suggest for this reading group.
It could also give me some ideas to suggest for this reading group.
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostTo clarify: do you mean economics as a field of study and how it has affected society, or the effects of the economy itself on society? There's plenty to be read in each area, so I want to make sure I'll be including the right materials.
I don't know that anyone - Marxist or otherwise - has found the solution, but I find it to be a useful tradition for thinking with to identify and investigate the problems and approach the idea of a solution radically.
.
A. I suppose both now that you've re-framed that for me. The field of economics and how it affects society seems like it's mostly driven through partisan politics though, so I'm not sure if that's straying too far from the core topic ....
B. I once heard someone say Marx was a great predictor / thinker but not great at prescribing an antidote to to his predictions / thoughts.
People who want to know about economics and race should read Balibar. He's not light reading though.
Dare not accepted. Ain't nobody got time for 2500 pages of this stuff. Uno Kozo did a version in Japanese that takes out all the historical material and boils it down to 200 pgs or so, that's the only way I'd ever touch it.
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostI dare you in return.
Dare not accepted. Ain't nobody got time for 2500 pages of this stuff. Uno Kozo did a version in Japanese that takes out all the historical material and boils it down to 200 pgs or so, that's the only way I'd ever touch it.
Before typing up my responses to everyone, I'm curious if we'd be interested in getting started with a bit of reading now, rather than pushing it all off until next year as I originally proposed. I don't have too many bubbles of time to use for reading right now, but it'd be a way to keep the thread lively even while we work out the grander scope of our reading group.
If so, I'd suggest starting with - of course - the Manifesto. Thoughts?
For the latter, I'd argue that that was a necessary corollary of Marx's views themselves: the new society would find its own solutions in its own creation. As we examine Marx's work, you'll see how he ties the ideas of an age to the economy - a claim at the heart of Marxian concepts of ideology and the political superstructure (tendentious concepts we'll certainly find the time to unpack and argue over). Marx, according to his own logic, shouldn't be able to know what the future will look like, because even so steadfast a critic of the capitalist mode of production as himself couldn't fully escape it. His work trenchantly critiques the present, but the future is to be shaped by its participants.
I'd prefer to keep the reading group oriented around Marxism, hence why I named it such, but it wouldn't exactly be straying far by including figures like Lasalle.
Marxism and race could be a great course to follow if that's something people are interested in. It's one of the areas I haven't studied much, so I'd happily learn quite a bit.
As for reading Capital: if you're chopping it down that much, you'd probably be better served by one of the introductory guides available on the work.
I won't pretend it's an easy read (even as someone who's read it in its entirety approximately twice), nor do I think the best approach for the reading group is to just plow into its volumes. We'll slough off our meager number of members quite quickly with that approach. My plan is to use relevant sections when they arise, but if sometime down the line the group wants to immerse themselves in it, then we can definitely try.
If so, I'd suggest starting with - of course - the Manifesto. Thoughts?
By KingGondo Go To PostMy local DSA actually has a reading group. I should really attend it.Excellent. The more suggestions, the better. I don't want the thread to just be me mining my personal book collection and uni syllabi.
It could also give me some ideas to suggest for this reading group.
By Fenderputty Go To PostA. I suppose both now that you've re-framed that for me. The field of economics and how it affects society seems like it's mostly driven through partisan politics though, so I'm not sure if that's straying too far from the core topic ….Concerning the first point, there's actually quite substantial literature on the field of economics and its effects. It's something that's become increasingly scrutinized following the success of the Mont Pelerin neoliberals in remaking the world according to their own views. But it has a long tradition, and we can look at everything from Marx's Theories of Surplus Value up to the present day.
B. I once heard someone say Marx was a great predictor / thinker but not great at prescribing an antidote to to his predictions / thoughts.
For the latter, I'd argue that that was a necessary corollary of Marx's views themselves: the new society would find its own solutions in its own creation. As we examine Marx's work, you'll see how he ties the ideas of an age to the economy - a claim at the heart of Marxian concepts of ideology and the political superstructure (tendentious concepts we'll certainly find the time to unpack and argue over). Marx, according to his own logic, shouldn't be able to know what the future will look like, because even so steadfast a critic of the capitalist mode of production as himself couldn't fully escape it. His work trenchantly critiques the present, but the future is to be shaped by its participants.
By Apollo Go To PostWhere's the Ferdinand Lassalle's thread?I'm open to bringing in thinkers parallel to Marx when applicable. Perhaps we could consider Lasalle's thoughts on the state if we get into a discussion of Marxist concepts of the state - Marx's, Engels's, Lenin's, et al.
I'd prefer to keep the reading group oriented around Marxism, hence why I named it such, but it wouldn't exactly be straying far by including figures like Lasalle.
By livefromkyoto Go To PostPeople who want to know about economics and race should read Balibar. He's not light reading though.Balibar is a great suggestion. He also has some excellent work on the philosophy of Marx, following on from his professor, Althusser's, work.
Dare not accepted. Ain't nobody got time for 2500 pages of this stuff. Uno Kozo did a version in Japanese that takes out all the historical material and boils it down to 200 pgs or so, that's the only way I'd ever touch it.
Marxism and race could be a great course to follow if that's something people are interested in. It's one of the areas I haven't studied much, so I'd happily learn quite a bit.
As for reading Capital: if you're chopping it down that much, you'd probably be better served by one of the introductory guides available on the work.
I won't pretend it's an easy read (even as someone who's read it in its entirety approximately twice), nor do I think the best approach for the reading group is to just plow into its volumes. We'll slough off our meager number of members quite quickly with that approach. My plan is to use relevant sections when they arise, but if sometime down the line the group wants to immerse themselves in it, then we can definitely try.
This sounds great. I've always had in interest in Marx but I haven't read any of his work and regrettably lag behind when it comes to reading influential works on economics. Now that I've gone back to school (yay!) a lot of this stuff will arise eventually so this reading group would be a good way to get some background knowledge for my actual courses. I'm definitely down.
I think I may be able to start reading slowly in December even, since school will be out and work will be very slow. Would that be okay?
I think I may be able to start reading slowly in December even, since school will be out and work will be very slow. Would that be okay?
My child’s birth is in like 3 weeks. January would be appreciated, though I can play catch up if need be.
By Fenderputty Go To PostMy child’s birth is in like 3 weeks. January would be appreciated, though I can play catch up if need be.What I'm reading is: you have only 3 more weeks in which you'll be able to participate, after which you'll be devoured by your time-chewing spawn.
Sit up, lads. We're reading Capital - all three volumes - in the next 20 days.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostI think I may be able to start reading slowly in December even, since school will be out and work will be very slow. Would that be okay?Since an earlier start doesn't seem to fit too well into anyone's schedule (mine included), I think we'll stick to the original plan of early 2018; but I'll compile a brief list of related but inessential readings for anyone with spare time and enthusiasm to begin early.
For a first suggestion, maybe China Miéville's recently published history of the Russian revolution, October?
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostWhat I'm reading is: you have only 3 more weeks in which you'll be able to participate, after which you'll be devoured by your time-chewing spawn.
Sit up, lads. We're reading Capital - all three volumes - in the next 20 days.
Heh ...
Hopefully child #2 resembles child #1 and will be sleeping longer periods of time in the evenings at about week 5-6. That's when my schedule started to get more normal for child #1. With fewer night time feeding breaks I get more sleep and don't go to bed at 8PM lol. Child #1 goes to bed at 7:30 to 8 so she's not an issue. It's mostly just sleep becoming priority numero uno for that first 1.5 months. By mid Jan things should be normalized, but Feb for sure.
Like I like Marxism as a quasi ideal of "brotherhood" and "the greater good" but it has way to much faith in human nature.....
By Zeus Ex Machina Go To PostLike I like Marxism as a quasi ideal of "brotherhood" and "the greater good" but it has way to much faith in human nature…..
I agree. To some extent I think human nature will become less important as we reach a post scarcity society though. I hope (I think we will) touch on this and how it's shaped the modern socialist movements. Think market based socialism for example.
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostFor a first suggestion, maybe China Miéville's recently published history of the Russian revolution, October?Sounds good to me.
As someone who's completely unaware of the extent of the philosophy and work, I am very interested in participating in the readings.
I am very interested.
Never read the full texts
Put me in this camp.
Never read the full texts
By Zeus Ex Machina Go To PostLike I like Marxism as a quasi ideal of "brotherhood" and "the greater good" but it has way to much faith in human nature…..
Put me in this camp.
I'm definitely interested in this. I stopped following a lot of stuff in general for the last 5+ years, used to subscribe to Monthly Review for a long time. It'd be great to go over things that I read as an impressionable college student now that I'm in my 30s with a kid. This stuff was my focus in school, my major was Political Economy.
Most of the nations that we view as "communist" or "marxist" never even went through capitalist growth. They went straight from a quasi feudal state to whatever it is that they were. The funny thing is that Marx was a big fan of capitalism and markets, until it reaches this stage. Most of the stuff in the Communist Mannifesto is a prescription to make things better for the working class without overtly destroying the market economy that needs to grow and go through its stages of life and death to birth communism.
*edit*
Also, short list of my favs:
Monopoly Capital
Imperialism Without Colonies
After Capitalism
Gotta keep in mind that a lot of Marxist thought and writings are ultimately a critique and study of capitalism with a general end goal of an economy based on non-alienating labor and more equal distribution. That end part isn't something that can really be studied very well due to the lack of real world examples. At least as of... 10ish years ago, After Capitalism paints a fairly interesting picture of what a realistic Marxist economy would be.
By livefromkyoto Go To PostRead all of Kapital.But have you read that and Wealth of Nations? :P
I dare you.
By Fenderputty Go To PostI agree. To some extent I think human nature will become less important as we reach a post scarcity society though. I hope (I think we will) touch on this and how it's shaped the modern socialist movements. Think market based socialism for example.Before it imploded, Yugoslavia's model was incredibly interesting. Their ability to keep pace and even surpass Golden Age Capitalist economies while maintaining a more equal distribution curve to those same economies almost seems like a one off.
By Fenderputty Go To PostA. I suppose both now that you've re-framed that for me. The field of economics and how it affects society seems like it's mostly driven through partisan politics though, so I'm not sure if that's straying too far from the core topic ….The thing about the idea of communism is that Marx viewed it as something that comes naturally out of late stage capitalism. Basically the economy goes from producing things to growing via transfer of capital. Money -> Commodity -> More Money, and instead to Money -> More Money, also known as finance capital. At that point, capitalism ultimately fails and enters a long term trend of low growth, stagnation, and high debt.
B. I once heard someone say Marx was a great predictor / thinker but not great at prescribing an antidote to to his predictions / thoughts.
Most of the nations that we view as "communist" or "marxist" never even went through capitalist growth. They went straight from a quasi feudal state to whatever it is that they were. The funny thing is that Marx was a big fan of capitalism and markets, until it reaches this stage. Most of the stuff in the Communist Mannifesto is a prescription to make things better for the working class without overtly destroying the market economy that needs to grow and go through its stages of life and death to birth communism.
*edit*
Also, short list of my favs:
Monopoly Capital
Imperialism Without Colonies
After Capitalism
Gotta keep in mind that a lot of Marxist thought and writings are ultimately a critique and study of capitalism with a general end goal of an economy based on non-alienating labor and more equal distribution. That end part isn't something that can really be studied very well due to the lack of real world examples. At least as of... 10ish years ago, After Capitalism paints a fairly interesting picture of what a realistic Marxist economy would be.
I'm finding this introductory guide to Marx to be pretty good.
After that I would certainly be interested in October by Mieville, or possibly The Communist Manifesto.
After that I would certainly be interested in October by Mieville, or possibly The Communist Manifesto.
By Zeus Ex Machina Go To PostLike I like Marxism as a quasi ideal of "brotherhood" and "the greater good" but it has way to much faith in human nature…..Maybe one of our topics can be: what is/are the Marxist conception(s) of 'human nature'. We can delve into both the explicit and implicit - the latter being what you seem to have in mind.
By zfzmikey Go To PostGotta keep in mind that a lot of Marxist thought and writings are ultimately a critique and study of capitalism with a general end goal of an economy based on non-alienating labor and more equal distribution. That end part isn't something that can really be studied very well due to the lack of real world examples. At least as of… 10ish years ago, After Capitalism paints a fairly interesting picture of what a realistic Marxist economy would be.That along with Envisioning Real Utopias, Inventing the Future, and Four Futures are a few of the books I have in mind as we transition towards some of the post-scarcity ideas in which people have expressed interest.
Baran & Sweezy will, I'm sure, be woven in at some point, not only for their ideas and influence, but also for the arguments they've generated within and amongst Marxists (which, for now, I'll just cryptically set aside).
By KingGondo Go To PostI'm finding this introductory guide to Marx to be pretty good.My plan is to start with October, as previously suggested, since no one seemed opposed to the suggestion. It's timely. It's accessible. And, because it's China Miéville, it's someone many people already know.
After that I would certainly be interested in October by Mieville, or possibly The Communist Manifesto.
To get that started, I'll just plant this now: we'll begin it December 1st, unless there are objections. It won't be essential for any of the future reading, but it will give us something to discuss while we work up the remainder of the reading schedule and overcome any personal scheduling concerns.
From there, I'm figuring we'll move to the Manifesto in January.
I'm curious about the Singer book. He's no Marxist, but he's no capitalist either. He wrote a book on Marx years ago (not part of the Oxford series), but I've never read it.
October has a kindle version. Nice.
Will be nice to buff up on the topic. Haven't touched it since my A Levels.
BTW, has anyone watched October by Eisenstein? Amazing piece of early film propaganda. Also, helped refined so many film techniques. Wonderful use of montage.
Adding this thread to my subscribed threads.
Will be nice to buff up on the topic. Haven't touched it since my A Levels.
BTW, has anyone watched October by Eisenstein? Amazing piece of early film propaganda. Also, helped refined so many film techniques. Wonderful use of montage.
Adding this thread to my subscribed threads.
Finished the Singer short introduction to Marx.
I found it to be very good. He posits that Marx is primarily a philosopher and should be regarded as such (and not as a scientist). While Marx’s critiques of capitalism are searing and vital, his prescriptions for its abolition and his conception of human nature have not aged well.
I’m looking forward to reading Marx himself after we finish October.
I found it to be very good. He posits that Marx is primarily a philosopher and should be regarded as such (and not as a scientist). While Marx’s critiques of capitalism are searing and vital, his prescriptions for its abolition and his conception of human nature have not aged well.
I’m looking forward to reading Marx himself after we finish October.
I'm imagining something like:
December 1-3: Introduction and Chapter 1 (38 pages)
December 4-10: Chapters 2-4 (88 pages)
December 11-17: Chapters 5-8 (109 pages)
December 18-24: Chapters 9-10 and Epilogue (85 pages)
December 25-31: Catch-up and final discussions
This will be a bit of an experiment, too, because I don't know everyone's amounts of free time or their reading speeds. I don't know if most people will consider 109 pages in a week to be easy, average, or impossible. It's also why I've provided a final week for everyone to catch up through the end of the book and participate (fortunately coinciding with holidays in many places).
And for anyone who's looking for a copy of October, the publisher has a 50%-off sale going through the end of the year for both the physical and digital versions (with the added bonus of a free digital copy if you purchase the hardcover). They're also a publisher of numerous other Marxist and leftist books, so if you're browsing their site and something strikes your eye, don't just purchase it - suggest that it be added to our reading list.
Versobooks.com
December 1-3: Introduction and Chapter 1 (38 pages)
December 4-10: Chapters 2-4 (88 pages)
December 11-17: Chapters 5-8 (109 pages)
December 18-24: Chapters 9-10 and Epilogue (85 pages)
December 25-31: Catch-up and final discussions
This will be a bit of an experiment, too, because I don't know everyone's amounts of free time or their reading speeds. I don't know if most people will consider 109 pages in a week to be easy, average, or impossible. It's also why I've provided a final week for everyone to catch up through the end of the book and participate (fortunately coinciding with holidays in many places).
And for anyone who's looking for a copy of October, the publisher has a 50%-off sale going through the end of the year for both the physical and digital versions (with the added bonus of a free digital copy if you purchase the hardcover). They're also a publisher of numerous other Marxist and leftist books, so if you're browsing their site and something strikes your eye, don't just purchase it - suggest that it be added to our reading list.
Versobooks.com
Thanks for the info.
I might as well buy from their site as the book plus the ebook together is cheaper than Amazon
I might as well buy from their site as the book plus the ebook together is cheaper than Amazon
By KingGondo Go To PostFinished the Singer short introduction to Marx.I don't want to go off on too much of a quibbly tangent, but the idea of whether or not Marx is a 'scientist' has always seemed to be a translation issue. The German wissenschaft and the English science aren't identical. It's why, in translation, you see Kant, for example, pursuing a 'science of metaphysics,' despite the fact that to a current reader in English this is a contradiction in terms.
I found it to be very good. He posits that Marx is primarily a philosopher and should be regarded as such (and not as a scientist). While Marx’s critiques of capitalism are searing and vital, his prescriptions for its abolition and his conception of human nature have not aged well.
I’m looking forward to reading Marx himself after we finish October.
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostI don't want to go off on too much of a quibbly tangent, but the idea of whether or not Marx is a 'scientist' has always seemed to be a translation issue. The German wissenschaft and the English science aren't identical. It's why, in translation, you see Kant, for example, pursuing a 'science of metaphysics,' despite the fact that to a current reader in English this is a contradiction in terms.Singer mentioned this in passing.
I've failed you, lads. I've been on holiday, and simply haven't been reading October. Has anyone else made progress?
I started it but I’m still in the introductory section. Enjoying it so far and I plan on continuing even if no other SLAENT-ers join me.
By KingGondo Go To PostI started it but I’m still in the introductory section. Enjoying it so far and I plan on continuing even if no other SLAENT-ers join me.I read the first few chapters, but life intervened. I'm hoping to return to it in a couple weeks. As you read it, though, feel free to put forward some questions to the group, start discussions, etc. Perhaps that'll help inspire everyone else to start/continue reading.
I've only read the first 100 pages of October.
One thing I hadn't previously considered was the initial adherence to the stages approach, that some including Lenin believed it necessary to have a bourgeois liberal revolution before the socialist one. I guess this concept is relevant when considering the development of the Soviet Union - transitioning from feudalism - but I guess I just assumed everyone would want to strike when the iron was hot.
Book gives a good view of the tensions between the Provisional Government and the Soviets.
Enjoyed the image of Lenin opening his newspaper to see Revolution in Petrograd as the headline.
One thing I hadn't previously considered was the initial adherence to the stages approach, that some including Lenin believed it necessary to have a bourgeois liberal revolution before the socialist one. I guess this concept is relevant when considering the development of the Soviet Union - transitioning from feudalism - but I guess I just assumed everyone would want to strike when the iron was hot.
Book gives a good view of the tensions between the Provisional Government and the Soviets.
Enjoyed the image of Lenin opening his newspaper to see Revolution in Petrograd as the headline.
By Punished Go To PostI've only read the first 100 pages of October.
One thing I hadn't previously considered was the initial adherence to the stages approach, that some including Lenin believed it necessary to have a bourgeois liberal revolution before the socialist one. I guess this concept is relevant when considering the development of the Soviet Union - transitioning from feudalism - but I guess I just assumed everyone would want to strike when the iron was hot.
The Soviets literally would not back a revolution in Japan during the 20s because they thought it hadn't evolved far enough into capitalism yet. Which is ironic, since it was probably further along than the Russians were when they had their revolution.
Signed up for Jacobin's 4 for $5 Xmas deal and find it amusing that in the letters to the editor in the latest issue, Kerensky's grandson has written in to defend the legacy of his grandfather and provisional government.
Apologies I haven't been able to pick up October and start to contribute. New child and all. Hoping to start leading a more normal life end of Jan with regards to sleep and available time. In the meantime I plan on reading the discussion on October in here to not miss out on too much.
Mieville sure can write. Refreshing after reading some rather dry history books in the last couple of years.
Really enjoyed listening to Richard Wolff on Chapo Trap House talking about Marxist narratives, the inadequacy of economics education, the Boss Baby and capitalism as "the biggest hustle since… sliced bread" (lol you could hear him trying to back out of that analogy).
Wolff is a great plain speaking Marxist, and it's a good Chapo episode without Biederman and Christman making jokes about large adult son's or whatever.
Wolff is a great plain speaking Marxist, and it's a good Chapo episode without Biederman and Christman making jokes about large adult son's or whatever.
The starkest fact, I would start with, is that Oxfam—in England, you know the institution that does all this research on poverty, and that everybody kind of uses—the 1% richest people in the world, together, own more than the other 99%, together own. I mean, you have to go back to ancient Egypt and pharaohs to get this level of inequality. There's 2000 billionaires in the world. That's all. Just 2000. Last year, 2017, their wealth went up by $750 billion, just with the stock market and so on. That's roughly 7 times the amount of money people say would be needed to get rid of extreme poverty in the world. We didn't get rid of extreme poverty, because people who are already the 2000 richest people on Earth got even richer. What kind of an economic system…no student that I know of—none—being presented with this kind of information wouldn't at least admit it's an important question to raise. Is this the way we want an economy to work? Is this consistent with our family values, our morals, our ethics, our religions, or whatever it is. Most students will have some trouble with that question— would admit, at least, we ought to be discussing this. This was never discussed in my education— just was never deemed relevant.
Alright, Yen, let's revive this shit.
The bicentennial of Marx's birth is in only a few weeks - May 5th.
What shall we read for it? The Manifesto?
The bicentennial of Marx's birth is in only a few weeks - May 5th.
What shall we read for it? The Manifesto?
By flinbad the flailer Go To PostAlright, Yen, let's revive this shit.
The bicentennial of Marx's birth is in only a few weeks - May 5th.
What shall we read for it? The Manifesto?
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.
Yanis Varoufakis: Marx predicted our present crisis – and points the way out
The Communist Manifesto foresaw the predatory and polarised global capitalism of the 21st century. But Marx and Engels also showed us that we have the power to create a better world.Guardian long read.
A few days after the bicentennial, I finally found the opportunity to briefly reread the opening chapters of the Manifesto and hopefully identify a few ideas from which we can cultivate discussion.
I'd recommend reading the preamble and the first chapter, then returning here to parse it out, tear it down, praise it, or whatever it is you may be interested in doing. They're quite short, so I'd expect a sitting or two will be plenty to read that far.
If it's the general desire, we can go through the progression of his thoughts, but because this is a relatively straightforward text (unlike so many others of Marx's) I suspect most will be able to grasp it readily enough. Instead of reiterating what Marx and Engels wrote, I'd rather highlight a few passages, which may or may not be contentious or provocative. Respond to all or any, pose questions, or draw attention to something else I haven't already mentioned (note: I've excluded page numbers, since it will differ wildfly depending on which version you're using, but you'll find them all in the first chapter.)
Regarding government and its relation to the economy:
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
- Regardless of whether or not this was reflective of 1848 (because that requires historical reading well beyond the Manifesto), does this passage resonate with the political experience of your country? Of other countries with which you're familiar? Of the world and its international relations?
On the living circumstances of the lower class:
"The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth."
- Does this strike you as true within the present economy? Was it so in the recent past? Do you believe it will be this way in the future, and why?
On social relations and divisions within the population:
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. […] All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify."
- Does this idea square with what we know of the ongoing treatment of minority groups, including particularly racism, sexism, discrimination against LGBT people and groups, etc? Is capitalism able to function with these social archaisms still around us? Can capitalism, in fact, use these regressive tendencies for its own benefit? Were Marx and Engels too optimistic about the merits of capitalism?
(Compare also "To the great chagrin of reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. […] National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible […]")
On the creation of a revolutionary movement:
"The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
- Does this seem true? Why or why not? Why do the workers within this system seemingly continue to support it or at least abide by it? Do you see this continuing? Why or why not?
I'd recommend reading the preamble and the first chapter, then returning here to parse it out, tear it down, praise it, or whatever it is you may be interested in doing. They're quite short, so I'd expect a sitting or two will be plenty to read that far.
If it's the general desire, we can go through the progression of his thoughts, but because this is a relatively straightforward text (unlike so many others of Marx's) I suspect most will be able to grasp it readily enough. Instead of reiterating what Marx and Engels wrote, I'd rather highlight a few passages, which may or may not be contentious or provocative. Respond to all or any, pose questions, or draw attention to something else I haven't already mentioned (note: I've excluded page numbers, since it will differ wildfly depending on which version you're using, but you'll find them all in the first chapter.)
Regarding government and its relation to the economy:
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
- Regardless of whether or not this was reflective of 1848 (because that requires historical reading well beyond the Manifesto), does this passage resonate with the political experience of your country? Of other countries with which you're familiar? Of the world and its international relations?
On the living circumstances of the lower class:
"The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth."
- Does this strike you as true within the present economy? Was it so in the recent past? Do you believe it will be this way in the future, and why?
On social relations and divisions within the population:
"The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. […] All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify."
- Does this idea square with what we know of the ongoing treatment of minority groups, including particularly racism, sexism, discrimination against LGBT people and groups, etc? Is capitalism able to function with these social archaisms still around us? Can capitalism, in fact, use these regressive tendencies for its own benefit? Were Marx and Engels too optimistic about the merits of capitalism?
(Compare also "To the great chagrin of reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. […] National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible […]")
On the creation of a revolutionary movement:
"The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
- Does this seem true? Why or why not? Why do the workers within this system seemingly continue to support it or at least abide by it? Do you see this continuing? Why or why not?
Great right up Flabber. I really hope I can contribute to this thread.
Thought I would link a free copy of it on Kindle.
I know it is also free on apple books and guessing many ither places.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01BK936SC/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1525957797&sr=8-5&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=manifesto
Thought I would link a free copy of it on Kindle.
I know it is also free on apple books and guessing many ither places.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01BK936SC/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1525957797&sr=8-5&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=manifesto
I will try my best to answer the questions you proposed.
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
I think this is true of most democracies.
The interests of businesses trump all others because they are integral to the continued life line of modern countries. Big companies are so vital for growing GDP and helping to bring in tax revenue. Maybe not by directly taxing those big companies themselves(corportion tax and legal loopholes make it easy for the biggest comopanies to pay nothing), but by encouraging employment of the local populace, which the government has no problem taxing more heaviliy than companies.
I look at a country like Korea and find this to be very true. The biggest six or seven largest conglomarites are responsible for such a large percentage of GDP and economic growth that it would be suicidal for the government to implement measures that would disrupt that. The only times that the big chaebols come under threat is when their leaders cross the line into criminality, or when it actually seems to affect the health of the country(In this regard Korea has reduced the minimum working week before overtime pay to 52 hours from something like 65, Koreans are not having children and this is one measure the govt hopes will prove effective to reverse it)
"The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth."
I don't know what the gap between the average worker and CEOs were like 100 years ago or 200 years ago when Marx was born, but I know since the 60s/70s the average wage of CEOs has risen 1000% compared to 11% for the average joe, so now the wage ratio is 303:1, compared to 20:1 in 1965.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/
The quality of life has improved, but I guesss you could say the average worker in sinking further behind than those above them.
"The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
Workers have no choice, but to support it. Globalisation has meant that companies can always find another group of people to exploit. It is why raising the minimum wage is foolish for governments(again going back to the relation of the govt and economy). Companies will just look to automation at an even faster rate, leading to higher unemployment and lost tax streams.
Those are just my initial thoughts anyways.
I didn't answer the part about social divisions as I don't really know enough about it.
"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
I think this is true of most democracies.
The interests of businesses trump all others because they are integral to the continued life line of modern countries. Big companies are so vital for growing GDP and helping to bring in tax revenue. Maybe not by directly taxing those big companies themselves(corportion tax and legal loopholes make it easy for the biggest comopanies to pay nothing), but by encouraging employment of the local populace, which the government has no problem taxing more heaviliy than companies.
I look at a country like Korea and find this to be very true. The biggest six or seven largest conglomarites are responsible for such a large percentage of GDP and economic growth that it would be suicidal for the government to implement measures that would disrupt that. The only times that the big chaebols come under threat is when their leaders cross the line into criminality, or when it actually seems to affect the health of the country(In this regard Korea has reduced the minimum working week before overtime pay to 52 hours from something like 65, Koreans are not having children and this is one measure the govt hopes will prove effective to reverse it)
"The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth."
I don't know what the gap between the average worker and CEOs were like 100 years ago or 200 years ago when Marx was born, but I know since the 60s/70s the average wage of CEOs has risen 1000% compared to 11% for the average joe, so now the wage ratio is 303:1, compared to 20:1 in 1965.
http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/
The quality of life has improved, but I guesss you could say the average worker in sinking further behind than those above them.
"The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."
Workers have no choice, but to support it. Globalisation has meant that companies can always find another group of people to exploit. It is why raising the minimum wage is foolish for governments(again going back to the relation of the govt and economy). Companies will just look to automation at an even faster rate, leading to higher unemployment and lost tax streams.
Those are just my initial thoughts anyways.
I didn't answer the part about social divisions as I don't really know enough about it.